Quoting TFS for your enjoyment:
> but not in Massachusetts. The state's supreme court says
Quoting TFS for your enjoyment:
> but not in Massachusetts. The state's supreme court says
Also, if Washington mandates a policy, there is a good chance they'll do something stupid like say "all bits must be treated equally". All bits are not in fact equal. The right thing to do is to block connections from that Nigerian prince with a billion dollars to give away, and prioritize the communications of the search and rescue team.
I'm in favor of network neutrality as a concept. I don't trust Washington to get it right.
Further, even if Washington gets it right, there is little chance that the common understanding of the regulations will be correct or even reasonable. As an example, HIPPA says that hospitals may not sell patient data to marketers. Health care professionals MAY discuss patient care with family members and anyone else that they think the patient would approve of. However, two staff members at the local hospital refuse to discuss with me the billing for my newborn daughter's care, because they think HIPPA prevents them from discussing anything until the patient signs their form. My daughter won't be able to sign her name for another few years, so I guess the hospital won't be getting paid for a few years.
What are the odds that Washington is going to come up wuth regulations that are both reasonable (you can block attackers and spammers) AND simple enough that the high school kid working the support line understands the regulations as they affect hos job.
It seems you're not familiar with how the internet works beyond your own modem.
Back when you had a dialup modem and you spent an hour a day online, your ISP had run a T1 line from thw nearest largw city to Yourtown, which supported 300 customers, each online an hour a day.
Next, your ISP spent $XX million deploying high speed lines and each customer used ten times as much bandwidth. That meant the ISP had to replace that T1 with a T3, which they were able to share with the local school system. Then customers started watching video , and therefore using more bandwidth. To provide the additional bandwidth, the ISP had to put in a T3 of their own, which again cost millions. Then Youtube showed up, customers used more bandwidth, and two more T3s were required for Yourtown. The ISP paid a ton of money for those two new T3 lines. Then Netflix, and the new OC-192 line for Yourtown.
The ISP's cost function is much like your own- if your housemates use more bandwidth, you'll need to upgrade from 10Mbps to 25Mbps. If their customers use more bandwidth, the ISP will need to upgrade from 1,000Mbps to 10,000Mbps. Along with the lines, they'll need to upgrade all their equipment from gigabit to 10 gigabit.
This raises the question of why Comcast would care. For many years at least, the conventional wisdom among service providers and other carriers was that they'd prefer to NOT know what a customer uses the service for. If the ISP doesn't, and can't, know which sites customers are visiting, they can't be held responsible either legally or in regards to PR. I was shopping for a colo facility for the backup service I offer and the contract for one facility said "no porn". That was a definite deal-breaker for me - I most definitely do not want to look at what my customers are having backed up, and therefore become responsible for it. It would be a huge waste of my time to deal with any copyright violations, verify age reqirements, etc so the business is better off not know what the bits are. Just store the bits (or transfer them, in Comcast's case). That would save Comcast a bunch of money compared to monitoring and therefore needing to moderate the content.
Also, transporting natural gas from, a temporary site like most oil wells is problematic. It doesn't make sense to run pipelines to a well that will only there for a year, and natural gas doesn't compress well. This is why people who need gas in a tank use propane.
If you are correct that it increases the amount that can be recovered from an individual well site, then it follows that it therefore reduces the number of well sites required to meet world petroleum demand. After all, Texas oil fields supplied all the oil we need, we wouldn't have even be talking about drilling in Alaska or offshore.
> ZFS is not in the microsoft tradition
Balsa (Gnome email client): 2.5 MB, reads email. Optionally use libgtkhtml (315kb) to render HTML email.
Microsoft Outlook: (Microsoft email client): Several GBs. Reads email, handles calendar, embedded mail server, task list weather reports(?!?!) fax, rss, html templates, _sharing_ calendars. Loads MS Word (several GB) to partially display HTML messages.
Let's break this down into three statements and see where we disagree:
1. It appears that the Microsoft tradition is big monolithic packages that do everything. Including weather reports embedded in their email client.
Do you disagree with that?
2. Do you disagree with the statement that the Unix tradition (from ed to grep to elm and balsa) is small, focused tools?
3. Do you disagree with the statement that ZFS is a volume manager, a filesystem, a raid-like redundancy system, and a few other other things as well? In other words, that it's a big, monolithic package tat does many things. Do you disagree with that?
You LIKE ZFS. I understand that. It does a lot of cool things. It does a lot of boring things. It does a lot of things. Just like Microsoft Office.
One night, I change her password. I log into her account, and download everything. She's twerking while I do this. I can either parlay this to email access or run the same attack against gmail. I use the access to her email to reset every other password she hhas - Facebook, etc. If I want to, I can use her icloud credentials to lock her out of her phone for a while. The next morning, she reads her email and finds out that I reset her password- but only if I haven't deleted that email,while I was setting her account to forward a copy of all future emails to me.
You listed some great examples, examples of the opposite of what you probably meant to show.
Take scheduling- there what, six different interchangeable, removeable kernel modules to do scheduling in different ways, including the option to not do it at all. The scheduler only does scheduling, and nothing else. The rest of the kernel doesn't know or care about the scheduling. You mentioned filesystems as well. Yep, you can choose from dozens of different filesystems. The rest of the kernel doesn't care which filesystem you're using, because those other modules do their job and nothing more. You can use any scheduler with any filesystem.
Enter zfs, a popular volume manager similar to LVM. It just manages volumes, so you choose whichever filesystem to lay on top. Er, no. If you want to use the ZFS volume manager, you probably need to use the ZFS filesystem. That's cool, it'll also provide an extra level of resiliency on top of that great hardware raid you have. Actually, not so much. It doesn't play nicely with most enterprise storage hardware. You need to use dumb hardware and use ZFS raid to avoid problems. Wait, what? ZFS, a filesystem, is telling you which hardware to use? That's not like the interchangeable kernel modules at all.
> Drop the 'my OS does it right' bullshit because your OS isn't what you're claiming it to be,
Where did I say one approach was right and the other wrong? In fact, I said each approach has it's advantages and disadvantages. What I said is that ZFS is not designed according to the Unix tradition of "do one small thing, and do it right". Apparently you agree that's the case:
> don't disagree with the Unix tradition in the least, compartmentalized code with strong boundaries and good interoperablility where ever possible
That's why some who appreciate the Unix approach hate systemd. It would be more at home on Windows.
Re Sun, if you look at an old Sun Solaris box, you'll find some of the was written by a guy named Ray Morris. Coincidentally, this post was also written by Ray Morris.
Yeah, that's the thing about systemd- it's not Unixy. It might be great, but it's not designed according to Unix principles.
Miley CHANGES clothes? I thought she just took them off.
Do you have an example? The storage system I'm using provides every important feature I'm aware of in ZFS, and it keeps the layers separate. As ZFS has matured, it seems to be a way of getting all of those features out-of-the-box, without needing to think about how to put it together. LVM is one volume manager provides most of the same features, though. Then put your choice of filesystem on top of LVM. Can you think of any feature that actually requires the volume manager to be stirred together with the filesystem?
-> It may also eliminate the need for CAs and certificate altogether. You just store the public half of your certs in the DNS system
That's the problem. By the time a TLS certificate comes into play, the DNS must have already been compromised (directly or via mitm). The certificate is designed to alert you if the server you're talking to isn't who you think it is - based on DNS.
Several other posting here, fans of ZFS, are saying on this very page that ZFS really needs to be accessing bare disks. it will allow you to use another block device, they say, but data corruption is highly likely.
The reward of a thing well done is to have done it. -- Emerson